--On Wednesday, 11 October, 2006 21:59 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:03:24PM -0400,
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
In the past month or so I've run across two separate ISPs
that are apparently polluting the DNS by returning A records
in cases where the authoritative server would either return
NXDOMAIN or no answers.
Today, it is quite common and it becomes more and more common.
Is there anything that IETF as an organization, or IETF
participants, can do to discourage this?
Producing a RFC 4084bis is, IMHO, the best way to go.
Currently, RFC 4084 does not address this issue, only a
related issue:
o DNS support.
Are users required to utilize DNS servers provided by
the service provider, or are DNS queries permitted to
reach arbitrary servers?
So, there is IMHO a good reason to upgrade the RFC.
I think there are several other reasons as well. If we were
doing 4084 over again based on what I think we know today, I'd
recommend putting less emphasis on email issues --or even moving
them to a separate, supplemental, document-- and doing more work
on DNS tricks, the behavior of hidden and/or mandatory proxies
(if I recall, 4084 doesn't go further than a requirement that
they be identified), and preferential treatment of customers,
content providers, or applications (more or less the "net
neutrality" discussion, plus some issues about who gets hurt if
QoS options are provided to some customers and the relevant
network starts getting short of capacity or other resources).
But, while I could get up the energy to cheer if someone else
felt like doing the work, I'm personally disinclined to reopen
4084, or to try to persuade the IESG to do so, unless someone
can show where it is actually being used enough to do some good
and/or provide a persuasive argument about where it would be
used if identifiable changes were made.
Agreed on all points. But another and IMO more serious issue with attempting to
address this in RFC 4084bis is that a document entitled "Terminology for
Describing Internet Connectivity" isn't where I'd be inclined to look for rules
regarding DNS operations.
IMO this is a sufficiently serious issue that it needs to be dealt with in a
separate document that addresses it specifically. I'd be happy to try and
contribute to such a document.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf